To what extent was Gautama Buddha a theist or an atheist?

[ameyAtmA]

The Buddha teaches deities when they visit the human plane where he normally resides,[5] and sometimes too by visiting them on the higher planes. On some occasions devas and brahmas come to the Buddha for clarification of Dhamma problems. On other occasions the Buddha becomes aware, through his supernormal knowledge, that a god needs some instruction to correct a wrong view or to goad him further on the path to awakening. Then the Buddha travels to the higher plane and gives the deity a personal discourse.

Once a brahman admirer of the Buddha recounted as best as he could evidence of the greatness of the Buddha. He was trying to convince other brahmans to meet the Buddha. His proof included the fact that "many thousands of deities have gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama" (MN 95.9). Devas, like humans, develop faith in the Buddha by practicing his teachings. In Chapter III we will see how grateful devas express this confidence. When devas come to visit the Buddha late at night, their luminous bodies light up the monastery as they pay respects to the Exalted One and ask their questions.

We will start with a god who was agitated by fear arisen from his sensual desire, and conclude with one who becomes a stream-enterer during his conversation with the Buddha.

Buddha is one of the avatArs of VishNu.
It is typical of the Devas to visit VishNu (NArAyaN) during His avatAr-kArya on earth. Some of them are also assigned tasks and roles to make His avatAr mission a success, and some are asked to take birth on earth to assist with the mission.

Bramha-Dev (the creator God BramhA, creator of BramhANDa - Universe) , Shiva, NArad-Muni and other Devas headed by King of Devas i.e. Indra, visited Shri KRshNa several times -- individually and in groups -- when He was on earth in Mathura, GokuL, Dwarka...
At His appearance in Mathura as son of Devaki and Vasudev, the devas sang hymns of praise. Shiva came down to GokuL to pay Baby KRshNa a visit, Indra learned a lesson from KRshNa at Goverdhan, Narad Muni was in constant touch and visited Him in Dwarka palaces, BramhA in Vrindavan and Dwarka, and finally when it was time for KRshNa to wind up His stay here, all devas headed by BramhA and Shiva came. They come to remind VishNu it is time to leave.
RAma was also gently urged to leave -- otherwise , He is unable to leave earth due to His overflowing compassion.

 

[Samana Johann]

To "crossfire" on this, in regard of the OP, of Brahman Adrian, good householder, althought not clear against which wind-mill monster that might have been directed:

Venerable Samana Johann:

• Sentient beings posses a subjective mind. This is what makes them sentient.

To tell possible more correct: they cling, hold on it, and that is why they are called Being (satta, without the subjective discrim. of sentient), yes.

• The fact that one posses a subjective mind makes one vulnerable to delusion. (Delusion being the confusing of subjectively derived content for objectively derived content.)

Actually, good householder, is not-knowing the cause of clinging, holding on, entertaining. What ever eats, is.

• Therefore, all sentient beings are vulnerable to delusion. This flies in the face of modern theism suggesting that there is an all knowing, all powerful, ever-present sentient being that is vulnerable to delusion.

No one, nothing forces one to desire for to be or not to be. That's simply thirst which drives. Believing that one possess make one to such a "powerful be-ing"

• All sentient beings are capable of awakening to the realization that they are vulnerable to delusion, and can take steps of overcome that delusion.

Not that the Buddha even desired to answer or comment on potentials and most give indication that he was not much "confided" in such, that all could follow his words well, if even come in touch.

• Therefore, all sentient beings are worthy of compassion. Hence, Buddha is known as "teacher of the gods."

Yes, good householder, to the most harmless extent to leave them where they desire to turn around back in their love for suffering. So he did/does not only taught them, but did/does.

But what did good householder act-ually wished to express in relation to the topic here?

Blessed who or has good faith, that Buddha is the "teacher of the gods.", which is act-ually extended "for those ready/willing to be tamed (to come here also back on the specualation that the Buddha told "all have potential for Awakening"

"Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed."​

— AN 11.12​

 

[Samana Johann]

Buddha is ...

is already not correct, and on being questioned what he might be, human, deva... he, himself told this, Brahman Amey. May Atma (my person) could share possibility for clearance here, long term benefical for Brahman.

 

[crossfire]

But what did good householder act-ually wished to express in relation to the topic here?

That the poll question "Was Buddha a Theist?" does not apply. Sentient beings are subject to delusion due to the fact that they are sentient. The idea that a sentient deity might be subject to delusion does not sit well with those who call themselves theists. Therefore, the question, "Was Buddha a Theist?" does not apply.

 

[Samana Johann]

"Was Buddha a Theist?" does not apply.

...is the only correct response, Sadhu, to that extent.

 

[crossfire]

...is the only correct response, Sadhu, to that extent.

And that was my original post on this thread, Venerable Samana Johann. (If you are going to call me Sadhu, at least call me Sādhvī, please.)

 

[Jim]

I’ve been watching debates between atheists and other people for years. In my experience, the label “theists,” in Internet debates, was first used by atheists as an umbrella term for people who believe in the imaginary creator Gods of Christians and Muslims, and I think it’s still being used that way. From the stories I’ve read about Buddha, it looks to me like he rejects that kind of belief, so my answer was “no.”

 

[Samana Johann]

And that was my original post on this thread, Venerable Samana Johann. (If you are going to call me Sadhu, at least call me Sādhvī, please.)

Would Upāsikā be proper, or is it just a gender issue? As for Sādhu, it simply means, is used for such as "well said", or "good", an approve, appreciation. (pali, not sanskrit)

 

[crossfire]

Would Upāsikā be proper, or is it just a gender issue? As for Sādhu, it simply means, is used for such as "well said", or "good", an approve, appreciation. (pali, not sanskrit)

Ahh, my mistake.
You can call me "Village Idiot" if you like.

 

[Vinayaka]

Ahh, my mistake.
You can call me "Village Idiot" if you like.

No, no, you're stealing my title.

 

[crossfire]

No, no, you're stealing my title.

OK, I'll take "Wandering Idiot" then.

 

[Vinayaka]

OK, I'll take "Wandering Idiot" then.

Same last name. Cool.

 

[shunyadragon]

Buddha's teachings contain talks about Devas but not about create Gods. But there are realms of Devas and brahmans.

Actually except for the ultimate Brahman (undefined 'Source') I believe Buddha rejected any concept of God(s) particularly anthropomorphic manifestation common in Hinduisim

 

[Samana Johann]

Ahh, my mistake.

What, householders gender, or the adherent thing, or that one gave appreciation? Nothing of that is personal inherent.

 

[crossfire]

Same last name. Cool.

If we can locate cousin Blathering, we can hold a family reunion.

 

[crossfire]

What, householders gender, or the adherent thing, or that one gave appreciation? Nothing of that is personal inherent.

It's just that you said you've never seen an awakened female outside of the Sangha. Of course, that won't stop me from trying.

 

[Samana Johann]

Actually except for the ultimate Brahman (undefined 'Source') I believe Buddha rejected any concept of God(s) particularly anthropomorphic manifestation common in Hinduisim

In how far are humanish appearances then to be seen, if such was the Buddhas view? In that, he would have rejected empiness-dragon as well, or? How does Brahman feel with that?

 

[Samana Johann]

It's just that you said you've never seen an awakened female outside of the Sangha. Of course, that won't stop me from trying.

Good if after becoming member of the Sangha, staying firm adherent till then. Mudita, Upasika.

 

[shunyadragon]

In how far are humanish appearances then to be seen, if such was the Buddhas view? In that, he would have rejected emptiness-dragon as well, or? How does Brahman feel with that?

Brahman does not feel, because that would be anthropomorphic, Brahman is the undefined 'Source' of everything some call God(s)..

Hint: The emptiness dragon does not exist and is not seen. It is symbolic of the Prajna, or the inner dragon of wisdom of emptiness. I describe as shunyata, or my name here is shunyadragon, or nothingness dragon.

 

[Samana Johann]

The emptiness dragon does not exist and is not seen. It is symbolic of the Prajna, or the inner dragon of wisdom of emptiness. I describe as shunyata, or my name here is shunyadragon, or nothingness dragon.

...than, Prajna, thinking "the refrigerator will be not empty yet", got up and took a snack... may he, or shunyata, remember it, when one time empty... or when the dragon it beginns to scratch on the Source. "Jesus..." and the Uposatha of the Jains.

"On the Uposatha day, they get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Having stripped off all your clothing, say this: "I am nothing by anything or of anything. Thus there is nothing by anything or of anything that is mine."' Yet in spite of that, his parents know of him that 'This is our child.' And he knows of them that 'These are my parents.' His wives & children know of him that 'This is our husband & father.' And he knows of them that 'These are my wives & children.' His workers & slaves know of him that 'This is our master.' And he knows of them that 'These are my workers & slaves.' Thus at a time when he should be persuaded to undertake truthfulness, he is persuaded to undertake falsehood. At the end of the night, he resumes the consumption of his belongings, even though they aren't given back to him. This counts as stealing, I tell you. Such is the Uposatha of the Jains, Visakha. When this Uposatha of the Jains is undertaken, it is not of great fruit or great benefit, not of great glory or great radiance.